Post navigation

Five Emotional Pro-Choice Arguments

In the last post, I argued for a spectrum from a single cell (not a person) to a newborn baby (a person). This is in response to pro-life advocates who deny this spectrum to argue that we have a “baby” from newborn all the way back to that single cell.

I’d like to make five arguments in favor of my position. To do that, I’ll try to bypass the intellect to some extent and appeal to emotion.

1. Child vs. Embryos. Suppose the fertility clinic were on fire, and you could save either a five-year-old child or ten frozen embryos. Which would you pick?

Of course, everyone would save the child.

But now imagine the same situation two years later. The ten embryos have become one-year-old babies and the child is now seven years old. Which would you save? Obviously, the ten babies.

As an aside, note that the decision in the second instance is much tougher. In the first, we lost ten insensate embryos, but in the second, it’s a child. No one equates a newborn or a child with an invisible clump of cells.

2. Different Reactions to Abortion Procedures. Anti-abortionists focus on the horror of a late-term abortion. Did you ever wonder why they don’t focus instead on a woman swallowing a Plan B (emergency contraceptive) pill? Or a drug-induced abortion (the most common procedure for first-trimester abortions)? Imagine anti-abortion activists carrying signs, not with a photo of an eight-month-old fetus but with life-size drawings of a 100-cell human blastocyst. The signs would appear blank.

By choosing as they do, they admit that all procedures are not equal and that there is a spectrum. Their story is more powerful the older the fetus is. A blastocyst is very unlike a person, but an 8-month-old fetus is very much like a person.

3. Slaughtering Animals for Food. Which would be more horrible to watch: a woman swallowing a pill of Plan B or a cow going through a slaughterhouse? The cow can experience fear and pain, while the single cell can experience neither. The cell’s claim to superiority is only its potential to be a person.

There’s a big difference from what is and what might be. A blastocyst has impressive potential but has vastly fewer cells than the brain of a fly. The only trait it shares with a person is its DNA, a vague and abstract commonality.

And there’s no guarantee that our imagined cell will develop properly during pregnancy. A single cell might become a human baby or not, just like betting $1000 on black at the roulette table might win or not. With half of all pregnancies ending in spontaneous (natural) abortion, the odds for each are about the same.

4. Cloning and Skin Cells. Imagine that in ten years we are able to clone a human from a single skin cell. Would you never scratch your skin to avoid killing a potential human being, like the Jain who wears mesh over his face to avoid accidentally breathing in a flying insect? And if not—if “potential human being” is very different in your mind from “human being”—then why not see that same difference between a single cell and a newborn baby?

5. Saving Another Person’s Life. If a blastocyst is a person, would you give up your life for it? You might risk your life to save a stranger; is the same true for a stranger’s blastocyst?

What we value changes across this spectrum, and, while we might intellectually argue that a human is a human is a human, emotionally we don’t see both ends of the spectrum the same.

Let me make clear that I’m simply arguing for the existence of a spectrum. We can agree on this and still disagree on when the okay/not-okay line is for abortion. The status quo seems to resolve this well: society decides on the upper bounds and then allows girls and women to choose.

Show me why a single fertilized human egg cell is equivalent to a trillion-cell newborn. It’s not equivalent in any important biological sense; why should it be equivalent morally?

27 thoughts on “Five Emotional Pro-Choice Arguments”

“Show me why a single fertilized human egg cell is equivalent to a trillion-cell newborn. It’s not equivalent in any important biological sense; why should it be equivalent morally?”

Well, this is interesting. We have moral relativist giving us a moral argument..Can anyone see the inconsistency? Bob is always complaining about the intolerant Christian pushing his morality on people..And Bob is pushing his subjective morality on pro-life people. An inconsistent argument is the sign of a failed argument.

Bob tell us:

“Next time: What’s Wrong with the Pro-Life Position?”

Well , this is interesting. Now we are going to hear from a moral relativist what is WRONG and what is RIGHT? Wonder how a moral relativist accounts for wrong and right? More inconsistency!

“..Show me why a single fertilized human egg cell is equivalent to a trillion-cell newborn. It’s not equivalent in any important biological sense;….”

Amen Bob, in your worldview there is no difference.

In the Atheist materialistic, neo Darwinian micro mutational evolutionary worldview; there is no difference of the stage of a newborn. You believe we are bags of protoplasm so who cares what stage the human is. And who cares when the atheist murders the human. As long as it is in the womb.. What is inconsistent is the atheist should extend the bag of protoplasm maybe up to two years old..Just in case the Mother does not want the baby for some reason , she should be able to murder it up to two years.

Yes “The Law of Jealousy” Is part of the theocratic laws of the Israelites. The law was preformed by a priest to determine the guilt or innocence of a women accused of unfaithfulness. If she was guilty. God would make her sick and unable to bear children. If innocent; she would be able to bear children.
In cases like this, the priest and his service at the tabernacle were indispensible.

[Just in case the Mother does not want the baby for some reason , she should be able to murder it up to two years.]

“..It would be best if you’d read the post before commenting, since this is not consistent with what I said. (Or is this straw man easier to mock than what I actually wrote?)..”

My point is in your world of relativism it does not matter if the human is 1 week old or two years old. We are all random chance molecules in motion with no grater value than broccoli. According to your buddy Dan Barker.

Bob said to my question [in brackets]

[We have moral relativist giving us a moral argument. ]

“..What do you mean by “moral relativist”? And why do you see a problem? I see no problem…

Here is a definition:

Moral relativism views what is right or wrong and good or bad is not absolute but variable and relative, depending on the person, circumstances, or social situation. Rather than claiming that an action’s rightness or wrongness can depend on the circumstances, or that people’s beliefs about right and wrong are relative to their social conditioning, it claims that what is truly right depends solely on what the individual or the society thinks is right. Because what people think will vary with time and place, what is right will also vary. If, however, changing and even conflicting moral principles are equally valid, there is apparently no objective way of justifying any principle as valid for all people and all societies.

Bob you say there are no moral objectives. Which means you hold to to moral relativism. Which is fine.. But as a moral relativist you need to be consistent. Not a walking hypocrite.

Bob said to my questions [in brackets]

[ Now we are going to hear from a moral relativist what is WRONG and what is RIGHT? ]

[ Wonder how a moral relativist accounts for wrong and right? ]

“..Again, if you see a problem, you need to be clearer. I have no problem judging things that other people do as right or wrong. Heck, don’t we all?”

Yes, I see a problem. You are making a moral claim to judge what is wrong or right. In your worldview there are no moral rules that apply to everyone. All you can do is give your own opinion. What you like vs. what someone else likes. What is true for you may not be what is true for someone else. Your claim is relative to the person. In your worldview moral principles are not true for everybody they are true to the people who believe them. So one person thinks abortion is wrong for them but may not be true for someone else. And both views are just as sound on the view of relativism. All who deny moral objectivism are reduced to moral relativism..So at least be consistent with your worldview.. Every time you write a blog and apply to right and wrong, or Ought and Ought not you jump into the Christian worldview to make your argument. There is your inconsistency.
The best you have on any judgment you make, is your own subjective opinion out of 7 billion other relative opinions.

That doesn’t describe my moral beliefs. I guess I’m not a moral relativist. But I’ve also seen zero evidence of objective moral truths.

Bob you say there are no moral objectives. Which means you hold to to moral relativism.

” Nope. Since both don’t describe my (easy-to-understand) position, I propose that there’s a third option.”
What is the 3 rd option?
What in the definition I gave you suggests you are not a moral relativist?
If one does not hold to moral absolutes,by default one is a moral relativist.

Haven’t we been over this? I see no evidence of objective moral truths, so I’m not a moral objectivist. But I am quite happy to judge right and wrong in other people (heck–who isn’t?), so I don’t fit that definition of “moral relativist.”

Not so my friend. All moral relativist’s judge right and wrong all the time. Point is it is all relative to each person. It may be true for you what you judge wrong, but may not be true to the person you are judging. Either one of you has no oustide objective moral standard. That is fine if you want to believe that..Just be consistent.

Bob Seidensticker
on January 8, 2012 at 9:41 pm said:
“Moral relativism” is usually defined to include the inability to judge someone else’s conception of moral truth. This doesn’t apply to me
Of course it does. Also, if there are Moral objective truths. Then all you have are subjective relative truths..” What is true for you may or may not be true for me”
That is all your worlview has. So stick to it with consistency..

Don’t flatter yourself that you know what I think better than I do. I reject objective moral truths and I will happily judge anyone else’s moral truth against mine. Where it doesn’t match up, sorry–I will find that inferior.

Deal with it.

You make a vague an incomprehensible charge of inconsistency. State it clearly.

“..Don’t flatter yourself that you know what I think better than I do. I reject objective moral truths and I will happily judge anyone else’s moral truth against mine. Where it doesn’t match up, sorry–I will find that inferior.

Deal with it.

You make a vague an incomprehensible charge of inconsistency. State it clearly…”

Bob, I know and I accept you reject objective moral truths. Which leaves you with relative subjective morals, which may be true for you and not true for some one else. This is not difficult. And your inconsistency is you judge these people with an attitude that your relative morals are absolute. Keep in mind your worldview. If you judge someone on something you think is right or wrong, good or bad. Remember there is not absolute right or wrong, or good or bad in your worldview it is all relative to that person. Both of you could be right or wrong. or good or bad. It is relative to each person. So why even bring it up? It is all relative? That is all I am saying. I have no problem that you do not believe in absolute morals. What is absurd is the time you spend complaining how Christians Judge people and how Christians force the religion on other people. Than you go ahead and do the same thing. Except the Christian holds to absolute Moral truths. And all you have is your subjective relative opinion, you have no outside standard of absolute truth that the Christian has. There is your inconsistency. Any time you apply to good or bad, ought or ought-not, good and evil, only applies to yourself. Because your good or bad, ought and ought-not , good and evil may not be anyone else’s good or bad , ought and ought not.. And both of you may be right, it depends on what is relative to you. and relative to them. I think Greg Kouhal calls this difference between Moral relativism and Moral objectivism. Ice cream vs. Insulin.

And your inconsistency is you judge these people with an attitude that your relative morals are absolute.

Show me.

Remember there is not absolute right or wrong, or good or bad in your worldview it is all relative to that person.

Yep, that’s not hard to forget.

Both of you could be right or wrong. or good or bad. It is relative to each person. So why even bring it up?

Huh? For the same reason you’d bring it up! Why is this hard? When I think that X is wrong and someone else says that X is right, what am I supposed to do? Just say, “Well, you have your truth and I have mine, so that’s cool”? As I’ve told you half a dozen times, I don’t do that. When someone does anything that disagrees with my moral sense, I think they’re wrong. (Y’know–just like how you do it.) And if it’s something important, I will be delighted to point that out. And maybe try to change their minds. (Y’know, kinda like with this blog.)

What is absurd is the time you spend complaining how Christians Judge people and how Christians force the religion on other people.

I don’t think I complain about how Christians judge other people. Everyone does. As for Christians forcing their religion on others unfairly, sure, I think that’s wrong. Where’s the problem?

Except the Christian holds to absolute Moral truths. And all you have is your subjective relative opinion, you have no outside standard of absolute truth that the Christian has.

The Christian imagines that he has an outside standard of absolute truth. So what?? Is that supposed to impress me? When the Pastafarian comes to me and says, “The Flying Spaghetti Monster demands that beer must be drunk on Wednesdays,” should I care?

There is your inconsistency.

Nope. And we could’ve shortcircuited this conversation 5 posts ago if you’d just pay attention to what I’m saying. Moral relativism vs. moral objectivism is a false dichotomy. There are not only two options, as you imagine.

“Nope. And we could’ve short-circuited this conversation 5 posts ago if you’d just pay attention to what I’m saying. Moral relativism vs. moral objectivism is a false dichotomy. There are not only two options, as you imagine..”

Not true one is either holds to objective Morality or one is a moral relativist. It is either objective or subjective. Like the laws of logic. Something is either true or false. ( the law of excluded middle) there is no third option. What is your third option? And will it be absolutely true?

Not true one is either holds to objective Morality or one is a moral relativist. It is either objective or subjective. Like the laws of logic. Something is either true or false.

<nuclear facepalm>

Wow–we’ve been over this. And over this. I’ll type slowly so maybe you’ll get it this time. Can you work with me here?

I reject objective morality because I see zero evidence for objective moral truths. OK?

I reject the typical definition of subjective morality because I will (with pleasure) judge someone else’s moral stand. OK?

No more labels, please. They’re confusing you. I’ve explained the relevant points of my moral thinking, and you can see that neither of these two bins captures me. Do not try to tell me what my worldview is.

Better look up the definition again. Because it is exactly what you are. In fact one of the inconsistencies attached to moral relativist’s ( YOU) is what you do. Moral relativist are always judging the Christians ( with the passion of an absolute right and wrong). That Christians have no right doing this or that..or Christians are wrong to shove their Christianity here and there, or Tim Tebow should not display his Christianity on the football field. You are making moral judgment complaints that about Christians attacking you. So you are being a moral hypocrite..You are accusing the Christian of exactly what you are doing yourself. In your accusation you seem to hold to an absolute morality that Christians have no right to judge you. But you Judge them in their attack of you. That is one of the characteristics of a moral relativist.

The point is if there are no absolute morals. Then morals are by default relative..So you Judging Christians is no different than Christians judging you. In your worldview both have the same subjective relative opinion..You judging Christians or Christians judging you is just relative to each one’s opinions. Neither one is right or wrong. But that shows the inconsistency of the moral relativist. Because if the moral relativist truly believed what they say they do, they WOULD NOT judge someone else’s moral stand. If morals are relative to each person there is no need to judge others. But the moral relativist act and argues as their are absolute morals..That is the point of this in one part of the definition of a moral relativist..They can not be consistent in their moral relativist worldview.. As you have proven..You are a classical moral relativist.

Bob said:

“No more labels, please. They’re confusing you. I’ve explained the relevant points of my moral thinking, and you can see that neither of these two bins captures me. Do not try to tell me what my worldview is.”

1) ” No more labels, please…..” So here we go again. Bob is judging me saying I am labeling him? So Bob acts like there is some objective moral standard that “I OUGHT NOT” label him. But Bob says their are no absolute moral standards. So the best Bob has is he says I should not label him. But what is true for Bob may not be true for me. It is all realative to our opinions, our view on how we were raised, or whatever. Bob said labeling him is wrong, well some think labeling Bob is right..There is no right or wrong in Bob’s moral relative view..Bob like all moral relativist can not live consistently in their world. Thet try but can not. As Greg Bahnsen pointed out in his debate with athesit Gordon Stein.

2) ‘..They are confusing you..”

No they are not confusing me. You are a classical moral relativist. You are confussing yourself because you are caught in contradicting yourself continually.

3). “.. I’ve explained the relevant points of my moral thinking, and you can see that neither of these two bins captures me…..”

Yes , the moral relativist captures you perfectly. The point is a moral relativist has no reason or “right” to judge himself and accuse others of Judging. And if they were consiitient they would not do this..But all moral relativist do judge and use OUGHT and OUGHT NOT as absolutes. that is why they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

4) “… Do not try to tell me what my worldview …”

What? ” DO NOT”? Where does that come from? I have just as much right as you do in your worldview to tell you about your relative worldview. Unless you can tell me and Absolute moral reason why it is WRONG and I OUGHT NOT tell you what your worldview is absurd. Otherwise you should say ” hey Bob Calvan I realize that this is true for me that you should not tell me about my worldview, but I do understand that it is just my opinion and carry’s no more weight that you thinking you can tell me about my worldview. and I understand that what is true for me may not be true for you. In fact the more I think about it forget it you can tell me that my worldview is absurd, because we both believe what is true for each of us.”

So my friend I will continue to point out your inconsistencies in all your blogs. And when you misrepresent Chrsitianity as something it is not, I will correct that aslo.

“Neither is absolutely right or wrong. But I’ll be delighted to render my judgment about what’s right and what’s wrong in my opinion.”

Ta Da! Bob finally gets it! That is the definition of a moral relativist! congratulations I got through to you. And I did not embarrass myself. I guess that was true for you to think. But not for me to think. So neither one of us is right or wrong in your worldview. As you said there is no absolute right or wrong. Which is the same as saying there is no right or wrong. Just opinions!

Well now I will hold you to your statement. Especially in your latest post. We will see how your statement holds up to consistency. We will see if this does not reduce your argument on “Christianity Infantizies Adults” to absurdity.

Well thank you for admitting

“Neither is absolutely right or wrong. But I’ll be delighted to render my judgment about what’s right and what’s wrong in my opinion.”

As we will see if you consistently will be able to hold to this worldview.